Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025, brought forward by the member for New England, and I commend him for doing so. At the start, I'll say the obvious: climate change is real. With a global population of over eight billion people, obviously the industries that support them have an effect on climate change, and this is something that we need to manage as a government. But it's how we do that that counts, and I believe that we haven't got those settings right—not even close at the moment.

When we signed up to net zero, in 2021, we did so on the premise that the whole world was decarbonising and that the major emitters were going to take it seriously, and, four years on, it's obvious that that's not the case. China, the biggest emitter in the world, last year alone constructed 94 gigawatts of coal-fired power. It is mining coal at an unprecedented rate; it is not giving it up. India is also investing heavily in coal, and its targets under this agreement are so far out into the future that they're almost worthless. Russia is at war with Ukraine; its emissions are going up. It's building infrastructure to pipe gas into China. The US has started a formal process to get out of the agreement. Why? Because it's putting its people and its economy first, and that's what we need to do in Australia. But what are we doing in Australia? We have a government in Australia that is engaging in one of the greatest acts of economic self-sabotage in the history of the nation, pursuing 82 per cent wind and solar targets that are destroying rural and regional Australia. They're tearing our communities apart. They're pitting community member against community member. Sadly, in some cases, they're pitting family member against family member, and that is tragic. And for what? For the most expensive electricity in the world. A lot of our prime agricultural land is being carpeted with these Chinese solar panels. In the greatest act of hypocrisy our pristine, prime, beautiful forests are being mowed down in the name of environmentalism to construct wind turbines.

How did we get into this crazy space? We got into it because we had a prime minister who promised us cheap electricity. He promised us prosperity and jobs, and that has all been a total and utter mistruth. He promised us some sort of renewable energy superpower and that we'd have so much of an abundance of this electricity that we could break through the normal barriers of physics and economics and create an industry of green hydrogen. He promised we'd export this to the world, and it would be so fantastic! But what has happened? It has been a spectacular failure—in Gladstone, in the Hunter and in South Australia, and it's cost the taxpayer an absolute fortune.

The Prime Minister stood here in this very chamber when he was giving his second reading speech for the climate change bill and talked about this wonderful SunCable project from the Northern Territory that was going to have such vast amounts of renewable energy that we'd be exporting it to Asia. Well, within 18 months of saying that, what happened? It went into voluntary receivership; it's been downscaled, and now it has so many question marks over it that it's a joke. It's an absolute joke! I'll tell you what is real. What is real is the lives of business people who are trying to survive in this country, who are going insolvent at an incredible rate—33,000 of them since this transition to net zero began. It is crippling our productivity. It is seeing our manufacturing go offshore because we're not competitive. We have lost industries like our urea industry that is absolutely fundamental to agriculture. Our plastics industry and our nickel industry have gone offshore. Our heavy metal smeltering is on life support because it is captured in the safeguard mechanism. This is a nightmare that needs to stop.

Voting to stop this blind obsession with net zero doesn't mean you don't believe in climate change. It doesn't mean you're a good citizen. It just means that you are reassessing and looking at the world around us, our global environment, that is saying that this is not working. It's saying that you want to make Australia resilient as we go into an uncertain future; that's what it is saying. I commend this bill to the House.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Into the vacuum of policy that the opposition offers waltzes the member for New England, saying the quiet stuff out loud and proud, and going nuclear. He and his Nationals collaborators reject the goal of net zero emissions ever. Let's contrast the priorities of the opposition to those of our government. Our first piece of legislation was to cut student debt by 20 per cent. The opposition's first piece of legislation into this new parliament is not about cutting student debt but about cutting climate change action. The Nationals want to party like it's 1999. To be fair, the Howard government in 1999 was, in theory, supporting action on climate change but then changed its mind on supporting the Kyoto protocol. Even the Morrison government announced a plan in 2021 to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. So the member for New England, in this bill, is effectively tossing out the policies of previous coalition governments.

People in my community know we cannot pretend she'll be right, mate—not after fires like in 2019-20 that ravaged the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area for three months, took homes and destroyed nearly a million hectares while the eastern seaboard burned like never before and not after the increasingly frequent floods and storms, the wilder weather, that climate scientists in the 20th century predicted in this, the 21st century. Climate change is real, and reducing emissions is an imperative we owe our children and their grandchildren.

People are embracing the opportunities to do their bit to increase the amount of energy we generate through solar. Households in Macquarie across the Blue Mountains, Hawkesbury and parts of Nepean have taken up our offer of subsidies for home batteries to bolster their rooftop solar. The latest data shows 438 households in Macquarie had new batteries installed in the first six weeks of the program, putting us in the top four electorates in the state for take-up of the home batteries program. They are among tens of thousands of households and small businesses taking that next step on their solar panels and installing batteries. In fact, the biggest uptake has been in the regions, in peri-urban areas and in outer suburbs. It shows that ordinary Australians care about reducing their energy bills and reducing emissions.

The bigger picture on renewable energy is that Australia has hit new records with the volume of renewables generated, up around 30 per cent since we came to government, reaching 46 per cent of the national energy market at the end of 2024 and working towards 82 per cent of our mix by 2030. Emissions are down 1.4 per cent, or 6.5 million tons of carbon dioxide, to March this year, driven largely by Albanese government policies. There's record investment in clean energy, including $9 billion for new large-scale generation, evidence of an improved policy and investment environment. More than 18 gigawatts of renewable generation capacity has been installed across Australia since we were elected in 2022, enough to power more than six million households. Around the world, according to the International Energy Agency, global investment in clean energy will hit $2.2 trillion this year, double the amount going to fossil fuels. Last year, renewables made up 92.5 per cent of all new electricity capacity added worldwide. China will account for more than half the world's renewable energy by 2030. They are the facts.

There's another area where the member for New England ignores the facts, and that's on the use of rural land for renewables projects. For instance, in New South Wales, the Agriculture Commissioner estimates that just 0.1 per cent of rural land is needed for new energy infrastructure by 2050. We know with certainty that worsening drought and extreme weather are far worse for farmers and food prices. The opportunity of carbon credits, which are being embraced more by regional Australians looking to diversify incomes than by anyone else, is a significant counterbalance. The biggest threat to agriculture isn't net zero; it's doing nothing. That's the choice the Liberals and Nationals will make in their vote on this bill being put forward by the member for New England. Will they choose to abandon net zero targets to fearmonger without facts and stand in the way of renewable projects or will they stand with Australians who want a better future?

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my Nats colleagues for raising this very important subject as a national debate. They often view it through a regional lens. We heard that in the comments from the previous speaker. I am going to cast an engineering lens across this policy and explain to you why I have strongly opposed it from day one, standing side by side, by the way, with the member for Wide Bay all the way through, and I thank him for his support.

Before I start, let's be clear. We should be able to separate a policy like net zero from the technologies that it relies upon. Those are two very separate things. The technologies are not dependent on net zero. They have been developing for some time, and they will continue to do so. We can have a grown-up conversation separating those two things. Why is it that, under net zero, so many technologies fail? Why is it that green hydrogen, this great promise that was made, has failed so spectacularly that almost every carpetbagger in the land has run away from it? Why is it that offshore wind has received such an emotive 'no' from everyone around it and everyone whose coastlines it's going to affect? Why does it fail that test of social licence? Why did carbon capture fail at the Great Artesian Basin? Why do these things happen over and over again? I could point to SunCable, as well, as another example of a great story that was going to happen but has failed that test. It's something that happens time and time again. It's called the technology valley of death. Other examples are Google Glass and the hyperloop, a transport project in the US—cool ideas and cool technology with absolutely no social licence, no marketability and a plethora of problems that they raise when you try to take them through the commercialisation process.

What this is all about is, when we think about innovation and new technologies, we assign them, as they progress, technology-readiness levels and commercialisation-readiness levels. We think about it, from the first idea through to the test flight—along that pathway, technology progresses. It becomes more and more capable, and it becomes more and more commercially viable as it progresses along there. The technology valley of death kills projects and kills technologies when you push them through that process far too quickly. It's very clear to argue that that is exactly what has happened with green hydrogen. Green hydrogen has a higher technology-readiness level of nine. That's the end of the scale. It's one to nine. It's got a nine. The commercialisation-readiness level is three. This was never going to work. If you stood back, outside of the net-zero conversation, and you asked, purely from an engineering perspective, 'Will this work?' the answer would be no. For carbon capture, it's the same thing. It's absolutely low on commercialisation and high on technology. For offshore wind, it's the same thing again—high technology. It can be done. There's a cool technology there—very low commercialisation.

When this happens, it's not just that we go back to the drawing board and start again. What happens is these technologies get ruled out by the public. They lose social licence. We have seen that over and over again. What we have here is net zero policy trying to force through technology before it is ready and before the market is able to take it up. The bizarre thing, if that weren't bad enough, is that we live in a time where we have a government that is blocking a proven technology at both technology- and commercialisation-readiness levels of nine—well beyond test flight—which is actually out there in the market doing what it does and that would reduce emissions. It's called nuclear. It's used all around the world. We've got one policy that is killing off technologies and another one that is pushing back on ones that are proven and can be used. We are getting nowhere, which is why this isn't working. This trial that we've done of net zero hasn't worked. We can see that in increased emissions.

We can see, when we break down where emissions have changed in Australia for the last 20 years, is that the only place they've changed is where we've changed land-use conditions and stopped farming. That's what's happened. In an electorate like mine, transport industry emissions have gone up over the last 20 years, manufacturing industry emissions have gone up over the last 20 years and intensified agriculture emissions have gone up. These are the bedrocks of my local economy. All of those emissions have gone up. The only thing that takes it down is when we close off farming. I'm very happy to acknowledge members of the LNP who were with me on the weekend and voted against this bill. We're a great grassroots organisation when we listen to our members. I remember the last time we did that. It was the Voice. They got it right then. I'm sure they've got it right this time too. I'm very happy to stand beside the Nats on this issue as well as the members of the Libs who have joined me, because I think it's an important issue for Australia's future.

Ali France (Dickson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the member for Groom, who's just spoken to the House, about a recent federal election in which Australians were presented with two very distinct energy policies when they voted in May: embracing Labor's plan for a clean, cheaper renewable energy future that secures our economy, is good for our environment and our communities and will deliver the jobs of the future; or the coalition's costly detour down a nuclear path that we all know is slow, risky, expensive and out of step with our national strengths. Australia no longer stands at a crossroads. Aussies made their choice.

The Queensland LNP, however, are obviously still in denial, as demonstrated over the weekend. The people of Australia overwhelmingly voted at the last election to support better health care, more cost-of-living relief and a strong jobs economy that includes a transition to cheaper renewable energy. This affects everyone. It affects Queenslanders living in the regions, who want more local jobs; young people in our inner cities, concerned about climate change; and farmers, who are seeing and experiencing firsthand the impacts of natural disasters.

Reducing our emissions is crucial to creating Australia's future. The world is undergoing one of the most rapid transitions since the Industrial Revolution. Most industrialised nations have committed to net zero emissions. Governments are setting ambitious targets, investors are shifting capital towards clean technologies, and consumers are demanding more sustainable practices. Big businesses have shifted to net zero practices because, if they want to be competitive, save costs and ensure resilience, they absolutely must.

By endorsing Labor's plan in May, Aussies have made a very clear statement to the world that Australia is the place to do business if you're looking to use clean energy to create prosperity. That is why this bill, the Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025, is so bizarre. It goes against the will of the people and it is antibusiness. Responsible emissions targets are essential to Australian jobs. Australia's trading partners, particularly those in Europe and Asia, are more and more demanding that the places they trade with act responsibly. If we don't act, we risk being left behind.

Many of those opposite say that this transition is costly, but that simply is not true. The truth is it's an investment—an investment in Australia's future and an investment in our suburbs and the regions. In Australian suburbs, over 33 per cent of homes now have rooftop solar. With over four million rooftop solar installations, Australia has the highest per capita rate of solar in the world. Solar panels on homes are saving families up to $2,300 a year. Our Cheaper Home Batteries Program, with a 30 per cent discount on solar batteries, is already working to bring on energy storage to cut bills for households and support the grid.

We know climate change disproportionately affects cost of living for regional households—for example, due to higher insurance premiums. Worsening droughts and extreme weather from climate change are far worse for farmers and food prices. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says climate change has already slowed agricultural productivity. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences found that, from 2001 to 2020, climate conditions reduced farm profits by an average of 23 per cent.

This bill is the clearest sign yet that those opposite are in a shambles. They are not even trying to hide their undermining of the Leader of the Opposition anymore; they've come straight out with it. This is their desperate attempt to cling on to the keystone policy of my predecessor, despite it being shot down by Australians at the election. This bill is not just seeking to repeal Labor policies but also seeking to repeal those introduced by the Morrison and Howard governments. The member for Maranoa doubled down at the Queensland LNP convention over the weekend, because along with the member for Fisher he thinks he is much smarter than the Queensland voters. (Time expired)

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.